Guns and Cops... and balls of steel

[ACE]

A lot of people seem to assume a lot that never entered my posts. But of course it's the people. Just like in car accidents (or even intentional car homicides). And it would be people that would have to have background checks, be fully qualified, apply for registration and occasionally re-qualify under laws that require such.

. I agree with you on having stricter laws. You shouldn’t be able to just walk in a shop and by a gun without having to do a little more than a background check.
But the problem will always exist evil people will find other ways to do evil things. Imo taking away guns will only disarm law abiding citizens from protecting themselves from enemies foreign and domestic.

It’s really a slippery slope that I don’t ever see getting better.

My idea would be to eliminate gun free zones like schools for example. Gun free zones seem to be the go to place for evil to be conducted. Idk how I feel about arming teachers with handguns but in my state/county we have a school resource officer that works for the sheriffs department, they are fully armed and we don’t have any trouble with stuff like that here.

[Mister Fork]

...aren't gun control laws are a reflection of the values and experiences we have in their use? ... like why we have playground and school zones, why the speed limit is 30MPH in certain areas, and why it's 65 or 75 on interstates? Why we require pilots licenses and log books to fly airplanes? Why you need to be tested for multi-engine. ILS flying. Nighttime. Commercial. All regulations required because someone or some company did stupid stuff?

Now that said, ya'll need a whole lot of money to be a pilot, certified on multi, ILS, night time and commercial rating. It limits the amount of crazy.

[Maverick]

...aren't gun control laws are a reflection of the values and experiences we have in their use? ... like why we have playground and school zones, why the speed limit is 30MPH in certain areas, and why it's 65 or 75 on interstates? Why we require pilots licenses and log books to fly airplanes? Why you need to be tested for multi-engine. ILS flying. Nighttime. Commercial. All regulations required because someone or some company did stupid stuff?

Now that said, ya'll need a whole lot of money to be a pilot, certified on multi, ILS, night time and commercial rating. It limits the amount of crazy.

You are confusing political posturing and reactionary law making with regulatory enforcement. Politicians feel they have to "do something", pretty much like the harrumph scene on Blazing Saddles. They must "act" to maintain their phony baloney jobs and the only thing they can do to "act" is pass  law(s). The presumption being if they are not "acting in the face of a crisis" what the hell good ARE they. IE FAA regs are not passed by the legislature and are not proposed immediately upon the occurrence of an aviation mishap. Secondly, as I am sure you are aware while you are trolling, flying and or driving regs are not items that restrict a guaranteed personal freedom. You do not have the right to operate a motor vehicle, nor aircraft in the USA. Privileges are licensed, by the "state" be it the federal or local state, rights are not. Rights can only be removed from a citizen by the actions of a court, notably upon conviction and or commitment due to incapacitation. Now this discussion is certainly going to head into a locked forum thread so let me say "IN" before it's too late.

[Oldman731]

Secondly, as I am sure you are aware while you are trolling, flying and or driving regs are not items that restrict a guaranteed personal freedom. You do not have the right to operate a motor vehicle, nor aircraft in the USA. Privileges are licensed, by the "state" be it the federal or local state, rights are not. Rights can only be removed from a citizen by the actions of a court, notably upon conviction and or commitment due to incapacitation.

At present, the Supreme Court has held only that the Second Amendment protects a citizen's right to keep a loaded handgun in his home for self-defense.  Courts all over the country are struggling with what locations, weapon types and individuals are also covered.  Regulations that are "presumptively" valid are:  possession by felons; possession by the mentally ill; carrying weapons in sensitive places; and conditions and qualifications imposed on commercial sales of arms.  Otherwise the debate is wide open.

Just so we all have the same starting spot! 

And Fork does not troll, at least not on serious topics.

- oldman

[Arlo]

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Even the Constitution illuminates that certain rights require regulation. No infringement of the overall people. Regulation of individuals that have no business being near a "modern sporting rifle" (or even a semi-auto pistol) because they find shooting other humans for weird made-up reasons or no reason at all very satisfying even to the point of going to elementary schools, churches, movie theaters, restaurants and concerts to rack up a body count before a 'good guy with a gun' eventually tries to stop them.


But no worry, the politicians you claim to be infringing our rights by addressing this issue haven't been for quite some time. They have killed off effective mental health treatment, though.

[DmonSlyr]

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Even the Constitution illuminates that certain rights require regulation. No infringement of the overall people. Regulation of individuals that have no business being near a "modern sporting rifle" (or even a semi-auto pistol) because they find shooting other humans for weird made-up reasons or no reason at all very satisfying even to the point of going to elementary schools, churches, movie theaters, restaurants and concerts to rack up a body count before a 'good guy with a gun' eventually tries to stop them.


But no worry, the politicians you claim to be infringing our rights by addressing this issue haven't been for quite some time. They have killed off effective mental health treatment, though.

And yet nearly every single mass shooter was seeing a psychologist who put them under SSRI mental health medication.

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Why do you believe that weapons wont be sold on the black market to terrorist like ISIS?

[Arlo]

And yet nearly every single mass shooter was seeing a psychologist who put them under SSRI mental health medication.

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Why do you believe that weapons wont be sold on the black market to terrorist like ISIS?

If you're not even gonna cite the Reddit commentary threads you do your 'research' in why even bother to pretend you have a valid point?

[DmonSlyr]

If you're not even gonna cite the Reddit commentary threads you do your 'research' in why even bother to pretend you have a valid point?

Hey wants a source. Yet won't believe it when he gets it lol! Why even waste my time gathering the sources.

[Arlo]

Hey wants a source. Yet won't believe it when he gets it lol! Why even waste my time gathering the sources.

Because your 'sources' are poo and your 'research' is merely finding other delusional reckless dot connecting. So yeah, you are wasting your time on this kinda stuff here. 

[DmonSlyr]

Because your 'sources' are poo and your 'research' is merely finding other delusional reckless dot connecting. So yeah, you are wasting your time on this kinda stuff here. 

Says the guy who can't actually prove the sources are Poo.

[Arlo]

Says the guy who can't actually prove the sources are Poo.

That's not how it works. The person using the sources to support their pov must be prepared to also support their legitimacy (but you've given up on that since your couldn't). It's like you posting an article that claims there are Nazi moon bases and thinking it means something because nobody can prove to you that there aren't.

[Lusche]

Russell's Teapot.

[Arlo]

Russell's Teapot.

Precisely. 

[DmonSlyr]

Lmfao. You called a source poo just because you don't believe it, even though it's 100% facts. That's not correct arguement and logic. You have to prove the source is invalid. If you can't, than saying a source is poo without proving so makes you liar and a fraud. Simple as that.

[Arlo]

Lmfao. You called a source poo just because you don't believe it, even though it's 100% facts. That's not correct arguement and logic. You have to prove the source is invalid. If you can't, than saying a source is poo without proving so makes you liar and a fraud. Simple as that.

Relax, not many here expect you to make a valid argument when it comes to the conspiracy theories you embrace. I realize that being made fun of is a trigger.